- (1.) SOLITARY applicant Arun Kumar Sharma, by invoking inherent power of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed though this Application to quash entire proceedings of complaint case no.1748/9 of 2002, Ramveer Vs. Arun Kumar pending before C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar u/s 138 N.I. Act against him.
(2.) IN the revised list, counsel for the applicant is not present. Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State are present. This application was filed eleven years ago and therefore cannot be kept alive in the dockets of this court un -disposed off for infinity and hence in the revised list with the help of counsel for the respondents it is being disposed off by this judgment. I have vetted through the record carefully and have critically examined facts and legal aspects. The record reveals that present application relates with a proceeding under section 138 N.I. Act. Pleadings slated in the affidavit appended alongwith this application indicates that a complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act was filed by Ram Veer Singh, respondent no.2/complainant against the applicant before CJM, Muzzaffarnagar, on 30.4.2002, alleging therein that the applicant accused is a contractor in MTNL Delhi under the name and style Arun Kumar Sharma & Co. He resides in a joint family at 208/45, South Krishnapuri, P.S. Kotwali, District Muzzaffarnagar and all the correspondences in his name are received by his family members also who reside with him and the applicant replies to those correspondences. Since last four years complainant had money transactions with the applicant accused and in that process complainant has advanced Rs.75000/= to the applicant to be re -payed within a month. Applicant accused for such repayment had issued cheque no. 001454, of Vijaya bank, Vigyan Vihar, Delhi - 110092, dated 11.3.2002. Complainant/ respondent no.2 deposited that cheque in Union Bank Of India, Prempuri branch for encashment on the same day but the bank dishonored the cheque with endorsement no. 26 "funds insufficient" vide bank's memo dated 21.3.2002,which was received to the complainant the same day. Inspite of repeated demands thereafter the money was not returned and therefore the complainant gave statutory notice u/s 138 N.I.ACT(herein after referred to as the Act), vide annexure no. 4, to the accused applicant on 1.4.2002 which was received on behalf of the applicant accused by his brother vide annexure no.3.Inspite of gaining knowledge of demand notice no payment was reimbursed to the complainant by the accused applicant and therefore complainant respondent lodged the complaint on 30.4.2002, annexure no. 2A in the court CJM, Muzzafarnagar as complainant case no. 1748/9 of 2002, RamVeer Singh versus Arun Kumar, u/s 138 N.I. Act.
(3.) STATEMENT of the complainant is annexure no. 5 and that of his witness Ejaj Khan is annexure no.6. Summoning order of the applicant dated 24.8.2002 u/s 138 of the Act is annexure no. 7. Applicant lodged a protest application on 8.4.2003, against the summoning order vide annexure no.8 but vide order dated 19.7.2003, annexure no.9, the same was rejected by the learned CJM, Muzzafarnagar. Hence this Application u/s 482 of the Code to get entire proceedings of the aforesaid case quashed.;